Kevin Epps Trial and Selective Prosecution in SF

By Darius Spearman (africanelements)

Support African Elements at patreon.com/africanelements and hear recent news in a single playlist. Additionally, you can gain early access to ad-free video content.

A Filmmaker’s Voice Under a Legal Cloud

San Francisco is often seen as a progressive beacon. This image is being challenged by the murder trial of Kevin Epps, an acclaimed Black filmmaker (davisvanguard.org). Community members have gathered to support Epps, claiming his prosecution is unfairly harsh compared to white defendants (afro.com). They call it “selective prosecution,” which raises serious questions about race and justice in the city (davisvanguard.org). The case, stretching nearly a decade, highlights deep-seated racial disparities within San Francisco’s legal system (sfbayview.com).

Kevin Epps is a significant voice in independent filmmaking. He is known for documentaries that explore life in San Francisco’s African-American neighborhoods (scriptmag.com). Raised in the Hunters Point housing projects, his 2002 film “Straight Outta Hunter’s Point” received praise for its honest portrayal of community life (scriptmag.com). Epps has also been a community activist. For example, he has worked to bring media technology to underserved communities and served on the board of the San Francisco Black Film Festival (oiff.org).

A Fateful Night and a Claim of Self-Defense

The legal trouble began on October 24, 2016. Epps fatally shot Marcus Polk inside his home (davisvanguard.org). Polk was the estranged husband of his sister-in-law. Epps was arrested but released the next day. The District Attorney’s office, under George Gascón, declined to file charges due to “insufficient evidence” (davisvanguard.org). Epps has always maintained he acted in self-defense against a threatening intruder (sfbayview.com).

Epps asserted his right to self-defense under California’s “Castle Doctrine” (davisvanguard.org). Polk reportedly had a history of methamphetamine use and a criminal record, which are key details for the defense (davisvanguard.org). The Castle Doctrine is a legal principle allowing the use of deadly force against an intruder in one’s home (bayarea-attorney.com). It creates a legal presumption that a resident using force had a reasonable fear of death or serious injury (bayarea-attorney.com). Consequently, the initial decision not to charge Epps seemed to align with this legal standard.

Shifting Tides: A New DA, A New Charge

The case took a dramatic turn in 2019. Epps was re-arrested and charged with murder by a new team in the DA’s office (davisvanguard.org). This shift happened under the tenure of District Attorney Brooke Jenkins, who was appointed by the mayor after a recall election (ktvu.com). Jenkins represents a significant change from her predecessors. She advocates for a tougher stance on crime and a more traditional prosecution model (sfchronicle.com).

This more aggressive approach under Jenkins stands in stark contrast to her office’s handling of other cases. For instance, Jenkins’ office dropped manslaughter charges against former SFPD Officer Christopher Samayoa (ktvu.com). Samayoa, who is not Black, shot and killed Keita O’Neil, an unarmed Black man, in 2017 (ktvu.com). Jenkins argued the charges, filed by a previous DA, were “politically motivated” and that a conviction was unlikely (ktvu.com). This decision fuels the community’s claims of a double standard and selective prosecution.

Controversial Evidence and the Meaning of Selective Prosecution

Prosecutors cited “strong new evidence” for Epps’ re-arrest (davisvanguard.org). This evidence was a computer-generated “digital animation” created by a private firm (sfbayview.com). This type of digital forensic evidence is often controversial. It faces scrutiny over its potential for bias and misrepresentation (ctpost.com). The creation of such animations involves subjective choices that can influence a jury’s perception of events (ctpost.com).

Ultimately, this key piece of evidence was ruled inadmissible in pretrial hearings in 2025 (davisvanguard.org). The decision to pursue the case based on such tenuous evidence reinforces claims of selective prosecution. Legally, selective prosecution occurs when charges are brought based on impermissible factors like race instead of the evidence (speciousspecies.net). A defendant must show they were singled out for prosecution while others in similar situations were not, and that the decision was based on discriminatory intent (bayarea-attorney.com). Therefore, the community’s outcry points to a belief that Epps’ race, not the facts, drove the decision to recharge him.

The Data Behind the Disparity

The protests around the Epps case are supported by historical data on racial disparities in San Francisco (davisvanguard.org). Studies consistently show that Black individuals are overrepresented at every stage of the justice system. In 2013, Black adults were only 6% of San Francisco’s adult population (sf.gov). However, they accounted for 40% of arrests, 44% of jail bookings, and 40% of convictions (davisvanguard.org).

These numbers reveal a disturbing pattern. Black adults in the city are 7.1 times more likely to be arrested and 11 times more likely to be booked into jail than white adults (sf.gov). The disparity continues into sentencing, where Black defendants receive prison sentences that are, on average, 28% longer than those for white defendants (davisvanguard.org). Alarmingly, while this disparity gap is decreasing statewide, in San Francisco, it is widening (davisvanguard.org).

Battles Inside the Courtroom

The trial itself has been a source of controversy. Concerns were raised about the jury’s composition, which some observers said did not reflect the diversity of San Francisco (davisvanguard.org). A lack of diversity on a jury is a major legal concern. It can allow implicit biases to affect deliberations and undermine public confidence in the verdict (upenn.edu). Lawyers can use “Batson challenges” to argue that jurors were excluded based on race, which can lead to a new jury selection if successful (upenn.edu).

There were also allegations that the prosecution tried to suppress crucial information (davisvanguard.org). For example, they sought to exclude details of Marcus Polk’s extensive criminal history and Epps’ medical marijuana card (davisvanguard.org). The prosecution’s strategy is to prevent the jury from being biased against the victim. However, the defense argues this information is essential. It provides context for Epps’ state of mind and supports the reasonableness of his self-defense claim (davisvanguard.org).

The Fight Against Implicit Bias

The legal battles in the Epps case are part of a larger struggle against systemic bias. In 2020, the California Racial Justice Act (CRJA) was passed to prohibit racial bias in convictions and sentences (davisvanguard.org). This landmark law allows defendants to challenge their cases if they can show that racial bias was a factor, even if it was unintentional (davisvanguard.org). It provides specific legal tools, such as using statistical evidence, to prove bias in charging decisions or jury selection (davisvanguard.org).

The CRJA addresses the issue of implicit bias. These are unconscious attitudes that can affect decisions in the legal system (davisvanguard.org). In a significant local development, a San Francisco judge made a landmark ruling in March 2025 (davisvanguard.org). The judge acknowledged that implicit racial bias can subconsciously influence a police officer’s testimony (davisvanguard.org). This ruling set a precedent by allowing defendants to introduce expert testimony on implicit bias to challenge the credibility of police witnesses, opening a new front in the fight for fair justice (davisvanguard.org).

A System on Trial

Despite legal progress like the CRJA, the fight for its implementation continues. Public defenders report significant “pushback” from district attorneys and judges (davisvanguard.org). This resistance often appears as prosecutors arguing that defendants have not met the high burden of proof for racial bias. In addition, some judges interpret the law narrowly, limiting the kinds of evidence that can be used (davisvanguard.org).

The Kevin Epps trial is a potent symbol of this ongoing struggle. It is not just about one man’s guilt or innocence. It is about whether San Francisco’s justice system can live up to its progressive ideals (davisvanguard.org). The prosecution rested its case on December 2, 2025, with jury deliberations set to begin after December 8 (davisvanguard.org). As the city waits for a verdict, the case continues to expose the deep and troubling history of racial inequality that lies just beneath the surface of the headlines.

About the Author

Darius Spearman is a professor of Black Studies at San Diego City College, where he has been teaching for over 20 years. He is the founder of African Elements, a media platform dedicated to providing educational resources on the history and culture of the African diaspora. Through his work, Spearman aims to empower and educate by bringing historical context to contemporary issues affecting the Black community.